NOTE: This discussion was originally classified as "hosted" but has now been moved to the "member initiated" category.  In the view of the OC Stewards, what is taking place here is a debate rather than dialogue.  In a "hosted" discussion here at OC.org, we request that balanced participation be encouraged and that regular summaries occur recognizing all the views being presented.  

While we have no objections to people using the OC forum to engage in debates, as long as they don't cross the line into personal attacks, such discussion is not what we are seeking in the "hosted" category.  

Ben Roberts
12/31/11

We are delighted to have Occupy Cafe member Mark E. Smith offer this hosted discussion on the provocative idea of an "election boycott."  

As "host," Mark will strive to keep the conversation orderly, offer regular summaries of the perspectives being presented and encourage balanced participation among all those who are engaged.  Here's Mark's initial summary:

An election boycott is the only known way to nonviolently delegitimize a government. It doesn't overthrow the government, it simply denies it the consent of the governed so that the government can no longer claim to have the people's consent. Among the many forms of noncompliance, such as removing money from big banks, boycotting corporate brands, withdrawing from the system and creating alternative systems, learning to live on less so as not to have to pay taxes, etc., refusing to vote can be one of the most crucial and effective tactics.

Thank you, Mark, for volunteering your services as "host!"

Views: 4508

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm stepping, I'm stepping. Just trying to tidy up. Always been into that attention to detail thing. Nice tagteaming with you in pursuit of coherence.

Excellent suggestion, Victoria. But if people stop responding to me, isn't there the clear and imminent danger that someobody, somewhere, might be convinced by my arguments and stop voting in sham elections for people they can't hold accountable?

Wouldn't the entire universe collapse if that happened?

Are you going to be so irresponsible as to allow that possibility without fighting tooth and nail against it until your last breath?

It is clearly the most dangerous idea in the entire spectrum of noncompliance, as nothing else has drawn such heated and organized attacks.

It is clearly what the corporations, and the current system which they control, fear the most.

It is clearly a concept so potentially destabilizing, that even if it had been put forth by a dyslexic 17-year-old, you would still feel it necessary to attack him.

It is, in fact, the most destabilizing concept in the entire Occupy Movement and therefore the one most likely to bring about change. That's why the various political parties are putting so much time and effort into co-opting the movement in support of the old electoral system, the system so stable that it got us into this whole mess in the first place.

Funny, I've been an election boycott advocate for five years now, but the level of animosity against me has never been this concentrated. That is because up until the Occupy Movement, very few people took me seriously. Now that more and more people are considering abandoning the old system of electing representatives, and building a direct democracy instead, my wiritings are gaining much more attention.

Since you say that you have more important things to do, people might think that you and your friends will therefore stop participating in this discussion. But anyone who understands that boycotting elections is a much greater threat to the system than any other of the many ideas in the entire spectrum of Occupy concepts, can predict that you cannot and you won't. You may state your intention to walk away several times, as Ernest did on BradBlog, but since your primary activity in life is getting out the vote to legitimize the system (under the pretext of perhaps obtaining minor reforms, a few less evil officials, or similar bandaids), you cannot walk way. Your political parties won't allow you to do that for fear that they might lose a voter.

I'm sure that you've read, Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Political Tradition--1742-2004, by Tracy Campbell. The job of those who support the system is to deliver the vote, to grant it legitimacy through the consent of the governed. Even when those who are attacking me see that all they are doing is drawing more attention to my ideas, they can't stop because their job is to deliver the vote and my idea is to prevent them from delivering the vote to the 1%.

But if you really can walk away, I'm sure that others will be sent to take your place. Ideas less dangerous to the system can be tolerated, but this isn't one of those basically harmless ideas. This is a proven, nonviolent way to delegitimize a system that hasn't merited and therefore doesn't deserve any legitimacy. It is a way for the governed to stop granting their consent and, thereby, stop being governed and become free people.

It is the most exciting idea since the advent of patriarchy, thousands of years ago, when organized governments began to rule by force, eventually allowing some people to have certain privileges and pretending to be democracies, even though it was those who retained the sole legitimate use of violence who continued to rule by using that violence to suppress dissent.

It is the most revolutionary idea to hit this country since the Declaration of Independence, and has the potential to undo all the damage done by the counterrevolutionary Constitution that betrayed the Founders, who had shed blood to defend the self-evident truth that all men [sic] are created equal, and declared their government a "republic" by simply stating that blacks were only 3/5 people and therefore hadn't been created equal. That was treason to democracy and we've been suffering under that treachery ever since. Some of us think it is time to revert to self-evident truths once more. 

We want an egalitarian society where even those driven to drink or drugs or religion by having their jobs outsourced, the homes illegally foreclosed, and their hopes for a better future trampled upon by smiling politicos, have a voice in government and their human dignity restored. We want an egalitarian society where even those whose minds were destroyed by having been sent to commit crimes against humanity on behalf of corporate profits, can have a voice in government and their human dignity restored. 

We may be few in number, but we're the most dangerous people in the Occupy Movement and those who support the status quo will never allow you to ignore us.

Good luck to you also.

 

Dude, you're good. I have to say, I really appreciate this last amazing effort to draw me back in. I had to post again just because you deserve it. I especially like the suggestion that I'm a secret operative for a political party. That's a nice little paranoid twist that makes your personal story even more interesting (you are so important that you're being pursued online by paid agents). You should write fiction. 

Best to you.

VC

Nice try, Victoria, but who else but political operatives engage in what David so blythely refers to as "tagteaming"?

I was going to make a joke but I actually don't want to increase your paranoia which can lead people to real mental illness, and that's not a funny thing. I wouldn't wish that anyone. We all have to watch that, given the paranoid environment we're in. 

No, Mark, I'm not a political operative. And even though I think your position could do great damage to the cause of democracy, I don't think you're an operative either. Who else could we be? Just activists and citizens who care, in our own, perhaps flawed way, that's all. Though I don't know David at all. I can only speak for myself. I have no personal party affiliation at all. I'm independent. 

I didn't call you names or question your identity, I just said that your questioning of my identity was comparable to Nazis trying to determine if a person was or was not 100% Aryan before allowing them human and civil rights.

Again, another comment devoid of content.

Randall Amster granted me permission to repost his essay on my website: With Peace in Our Hearts and Power in Our Hands

In his essay, Randall merely says, "Beyond pointing the finger at bought-off politicos, there is the option of refraining from participation in their sham elections."

For merely suggesting this as an option in a system that gains its sole legitimacy from sham elections and does not tolerate dissent, he has already come under attack, and it may eventually, unless he retracts it, cost him his career.

You are either deliberately lying or torturously separated from what you actually wrote. It's right there for anyone to see. Random or deliberate chaos?

David, you have to give him some credit. Look at how he keeps pulling you back in. And he does it by inflaming your innate human desire to maintain a sense of reality. He's really good at this! I'm actually impressed. But you need to leave the fun house now. Come on, I'll buy you some coffee, we'll come down off this trip . . . 

Dear Victoria,

I accept. I don't know how we make it happen, but I accept. 

I know, it's fascinating here. Cuz what IS it? Yeah, I'm a big continuity guy. And very big on the insidious power of silent complicity. So it's hard to let go. But I think enough has been written for people to interpret for themselves what's real and reasonable here and what isn't. This is a mobius strip from Kafka.

oops, wrong place to post

I think my problem is a horrible need for justice -- must be cause I'm a Libra -- and I'm always trying to balance the scales with rationality. But Mark's thing is that he will never let you get the last word, he will always come back with something that baits you with it's lack of justice (false attack on you) or irrationality (argument makes no sense or refutes what he just said), so we are sucked back in trying to put it all to rights again. It gets hard to walk away for some reason. And the more we threaten to walk away, the more extreme the statements and provocations become, which makes me think this is really a cry for attention. He doesn't want us to leave, and he won't stop posting at Brad Blog even though he knows nobody there is his friend or supporter and he convinces no one of anything. But here I am now being a psychologist.

Anyway, he's very good at this, and I do NOT think he's 17, I believe he is exactly who he says he is, and he has developed this ability to keep the battle going over a lifetime. It's really interesting to me, weirdly. I'm a fan of debate, so I guess I'm interested in his style, which is boldly irrational, shamelessly and cunningly deceitful, and effectively provocative --  based largely on the repeating of information which has been previously refuted (as if it had not been), taking your words and using them to jump to his own extreme statement, which he then attributes to you and your thinking or motivations, which of course makes any rational person crazy. So you go in to defend yourself . . . And all of this for what? Again, it must be attention. Anyway. Sigh.

I'm with you on the deconstruction and there's more to say but I don't want to do it here. Are you friends with Jeannie Dean? Can I get your email from her?

RSS

Weekly Cafe Calls

Regular Calls are no longer being held.  Below is the schedule that was maintained from the Fall of 2011 through Jan 10, 2013.

Mondays
"Vital Conversations" 

8-10a PDT | 11a-1p EDT | 3-5p GMT 

Tuesdays (except 10/16)
"Connect 2012"

1-3p PDT | 4-6p EDT | 8-10p GMT


Thursdays
"Occupy Heart" 

3-5p PDT | 6-8p EDT | 10p-12a GMT

Latest Activity

Clay Forsberg posted a blog post

"Happy Birthday Occupy Wall Street ... thoughts on Year One"

Fifteen years ago, I ran across a book, "100 Most Influential People in History," during one of my dalliances to my local Marin County bookstore. "Influential People" was one man's assessment on exactly that. But how he determined his rankings was the interesting part. They weren't always the reasons you would think. But after thinking about it, they made complete sense. For example:George Washington was ranked in the top 40 of all time. Understandable. But the reason why ... not so much. You…See More
Sep 20, 2012
Clay Forsberg is now a member of Occupy Cafe
Sep 20, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a group
Thumbnail

Leadership Ecology

When a Leadership Ecology occurs, a web of relationships emerges revealing each person’s authentic leadership qualities through the transfer of their power to others. When done in a conscious way – a shared collaborative awakening happens.See More
Feb 6, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a blog post
Feb 3, 2012

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Occupy Cafe Stewards.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service